Of course, I meant the only *required* dependency that Commons Proxy has is the JDK itself.
-----Original Message----- From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:26 AM To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' Subject: RE: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper I went ahead and committed it. So, the only dependency Commons Proxy has now is the JDK itself! Check that out and let me know what you think. There are two "adapter" classes included which allow the use of JDK InvocationHandlers and AOP Alliance MethodInterceptors: http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/proxy/xref/org/apache/commons/prox y/invoker/InvocationHandlerAdapter.html http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/proxy/xref/org/apache/commons/prox y/interceptor/MethodInterceptorAdapter.html If we choose to switch back to the AOP Alliance API directly, we can pretty easily. But, we may want to stick with this. I don't know. James -----Original Message----- From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:03 AM To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' Subject: RE: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper I have implemented what I was talking about (using our own interfaces and providing bridge/adapter implementations). Do you guys want me to check it in so that you can see what I mean? Basically, I introduced a few new interfaces (Invoker, InvocationInterceptor, and Invocation) and made ProxyFactory dependent upon those rather than the AOP Alliance stuff and the InvocationHandler (in the JDK). -----Original Message----- From: Joerg Hohwiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 8:08 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Carman wrote: > Stephen, Hi there, just to give some feedback from me... In my oppinion commons-proxy is very usefull already as is. So I want to agree with the initial idea of this thread and would also like to see it in proper. > > Thank you for taking the time to dig into the code and poke around a bit. > I'll try to address your questions/concerns here: > > 1. Logging interceptor using Javassist - it didn't really use Javassist, > but a method that was in JavassistUtils which returns the "java class name" > of a class (java class name of Object[] == "java.lang.Object[]"). So, I > moved that method to ProxyUtils. That was a good catch. Thanks! It would > be silly to introduce a dependency on Javassist just to log method > invocations! > > 2. The ProxyFactory interface could limit you in the future - I don't > understand what you mean here. Do you mean because I depend on interfaces > that I don't have control over (AOP Alliance's MethodInterceptor and the > JDK's InvocationHandler)? If so, then I suppose that I could come up with > my own interfaces and provide "bridge" or "adapter" classes to close the gap > (I think someone suggested this before, but I forgot about it). This would > actually remove *all* required dependencies (other than JDK1.3+) from > [proxy]. All other dependencies are optional. If you want to use CGLIB or > Javassist to create your proxies, you can just include them in your > classpath. Maybe I could provide a getInstance() method on ProxyFactory > which tries to discover which options are available (Javassist, then CGLIB, > then default to JDK proxies; override using system propery). What would you > think about these changes? I am currently active on commons-logging. We want to extend the API of the logger. The problem is that extending the existing interface (Log) is not a good idea, because it is already implemented by third-party code that we can not control. So if we add new methods to the interface, we will break dependencies. So we expierence some difficulties in realizing the proposal, even though it is still possible without breaking dependencies. The same issue is also causing pain in log4j 1.2 -> 1.3 where the intention was to prepare for removing legacy stuff in further releases. So I think Stephen wanted to say that you should think deep about ProxyFactory and consider if there could be use-cases in the future that may need to change the interface in any way? There we discussions about the fact that what commons-proxy does is already done by others. It may help to have a look there and consolidate the ideas to have a stable API for the future. I personally think your usage and dependency on AOP-Al. is good and not a problem, but removing dependencies is never a bad thing. Anyways AOP-Al. aims to be THE API for that issue and for me it does not make sense to encapsulate this API. Isn't the idea that you have an AOP-Al. compatible implementation and can pass those instances directly to commons-proxy? But I am maybe not deep enough into commons-proxy to see exactly what you pointed out. > > 3. Will most users have to write their own code implementing an > interface defining in [proxy], or can they just used the existing > implementations? - Well, users could use existing AOP Alliance method > interceptors (like the ones included with Spring, for example). Other than > that, if you just want to create proxies for your classes/objects, you don't > have to implement anything from [proxy]. The core object providers > (BeanProvider or ConstantProvider) would provide all you need to "plug in." mhm. Actually I can not see the problem about commons-proxy beeing a wrong animal here... logging has dependencies on various native-logger implementations. They are all optional but I think this is almost the same about commons-proxy. You might consider to spilt some of the code into sub-projects. Then you can have the commons-proxy core with almost no dependencies and addintional sub-projects for cglib stuff, javassist stuff, and the cacho stuff. This will be very conform with the maven philosophy of projects and dependencies. The disadvantage is that by default you will not produce a single jar as artifact by default. Anyways you can still provide this if you want. > > James Regards Jörg > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 8:08 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper > > James Carman wrote: > >>Thank you for your feedback (finally somebody said *something*). I made >>this a vote based on the instructions found at >>http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/MovingFromSandboxToProperSVN. > > Maybe > >>we should update that WIKI to suggest making a proposal first and then >>starting a vote if there are no objections. I really just wanted to know > > if > >>there were any technical objections to having proxy move into the commons >>proper so that I could fix the problems. I would really like to see this >>become a full-fledged commons component. I think it's a very useful idea >>and a pretty intuitive API. > > > I took a look this morning, and also thought it could be quite useful, > and I could follow reasonably well what was going on. > > Technically, I remember a couple of oddities, although there may be more: > - the Logging interceptor used Javassist, an odd dependency > - the core ProxyFactory interface could limit you in the future, as you > can't change released interfaces > > The more fundamental question however, is whether this is a true commons > component. The sheer number of dependencies is a real question. Now > while a lot are probably optional, some will not be. > > This component looks rather like a framework to me, although a very low > level framework. Commons does have other components that have interfaces > and plugin points, but doesn't this one go further than we've had > before? Will most users have to write their own code implementing an > interface defining in [proxy], or can they just used the existing > implementations? > > Stephen > > > >>As for your suggestion to cut a release candidate now, I like it. I do >>think that I need some simple tutorials/examples on the site before it's >>ready for a real release, so I'll try to take care of that sometime soon. >>Then, I'll cut a release candidate, per your suggestion. I will try to >>follow the directions found at >>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/releases/prepare.html to prepare the >>release candidate, but I'm probably bound to make mistakes as I'm new to >>this project management stuff. I'll probably have a few questions along > > the > >>way too! >> >> >> >>Also, I would still like to hear if anyone else has any suggestions for >>things that I need to take care of before they would consider it ready for >>release. Resolving the 1.5 dependency helped of course, even if it did > > make > >>the API a lot uglier IMHO. I liked the var-args feature for specifying > > the > >>interfaces/classes that the proxy should support and I would rather use > > the > >>core JDK Executor class rather than the one from the "concurrent" API. Oh >>well. >> >> >> >>James >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:28 AM >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >>Subject: Re: [VOTE] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper >> >> >> >>hi james >> >> >> >>IMO it would be better to make this a proposal. quite often, small >> >>changes will are needed and discussion required. votes tend to get a >> >>little confused and lost when that happens. usually, it's a bit cleaner >> >>to make a proposal then move to a vote when there are no remaining >> >>objections. >> >> >> >>On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 08:17 -0400, James Carman wrote: >> >> >> >>>All, >> >> >> >>>Outside projects (currently my Syringe project and the "Crispy" project at >> >> >>>sourceforge) are beginning to want to use Commons Proxy, but are finding >> >>it >> >> >> >>>difficult since it's in the sandbox and no releases are available. I >> >> >>>believe Proxy's API is close to being ready for a release candidate. >> >> >>>Currently, I don't have any other bright ideas for it, but I'm open to >> >> >>>suggestions. Moving it to the proper will help us prepare it for an >> >> >>>official release. >> >> >> >> >>being ready for an official release is one of my personal criteria for >> >>promotion (so that's good). part of being ready is demonstrating to the >> >>community that the committers know how to cut commons releases. >> >> >> >>might i suggest that you cut an example release candidate and upload it >> >>to your apache home directory. not only will this speed the time taken >> >>to cut the first release (we can spot any problems now rather than >> >>later) but it will also give us a better idea of where proxy actually is >> >>right now. >> >> >> >>- robert >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDUkKRmPuec2Dcv/8RArfbAJ0TfUd0D8Bp5HtRuLD0lCmQz8kK9gCfXbEh vncqXCrQ5E34qhEhq5qlkeA= =bldL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
